Jah-vis or Nah-vis?

We were all tremendously excited to learn of the appointment of Alistair Jarvis as CEO of Universities UK (UUK).

However, we do recognise a potential problem. In the old days it was very easy to distinguish UUK chief executive officers (CEOs) from male models advertising personal grooming products (MMAPGPs). The CEOs generally looked like they'd been dressed for a job interview by their mums in a branch of Mr Byrite; the MMAPGPs were the ones in the long hair and ripped clothing.

Hail the Phoenix

Joni Mitchell captured it perfectly: 'you don't know what you've got til it's gone'. The repercussions of the demise of the 1994 Group will, I think, be felt for some time yet. Whilst I took plenty of sideswipes at the 1994 Group in its last, doddery years - it was such an easy target, wasn't it? - the gap that it's left is a significant one for the UK's higher education sector.

In essence, we've now got a one brand market place. The Russell Group is the Acme Corporation. It is GUM. I've heard rumours that the Russell Group was not exactly passive in the self destruction of the 94 Group last summer. If this is true, it should be ashamed of the part in played. Whilst all is fair in love, war and the feuding of mission groups, having one citadel of research is not good for the long term health of the UK's research ecosystem.

I've made no bones about believing that increasing funding concentration is a Bad Thing, and  I hope that HEFCE sticks to its guns and 'fund excellent research in all its forms wherever it is found'. I think it would be incredibly detrimental to the whole sector if we moved to a situation where we had a divide between 'research' and 'teaching' universities. It would be harmful to the early careers of many academics, but also to the experience of students. Research should inform teaching, and teaching inform research. Having a strong research ecosystem across the sector is good for the UK as a whole.

However, to ensure its survival this ecosystem needs to be protected. Someone needs to fight the corner of the non-RG universities. Someone needs to speak for the majority. I think its disingenuous - or just plain stupid - to think that individual universities can speak as loudly or be heard as widely as a collective voice.  In the weeks that have followed the closure of the 1994 Group a number of possible candidates have been suggested, such as Universities UK (UUK), University Alliance, and even the Association of Research Managers and Administrators (ARMA). 

I don't think any of these are appropriate. Both UUK and ARMA should be looking after the interests of all in the sector, both non-RG and RG. The University Alliance has a particular mission in supporting and encouraging innovation within it member institutions. What we need instead is either to get rid of all mission groups and just have a single body speaking on behalf of the whole UK HE sector, or a body who can safeguard the smaller research intensive universities. The former is never going to happen; the RG brand has become too useful to its members. The latter isn't going to happen anytime soon either: too many fingers have been burnt, I think, in the sad end of the 1994 Group. The idea behind the Senate Group was a good one, a positive one, but it was ultimately scuppered by delays and self interest.

What we are left with, for the time being, is the RG, and a patchwork of regional groupings, from N8, M5, GW4 and Kent's own Eastern ARC. These do, I think, offer a solution for the moment. They allow the member universities to be more than the sum of their parts, and to spark interesting, interdisciplinary collaborations. They may even, in time, lead to a more 'federalised' sector. But there's always a danger that 'federalised' might lead to 'factionalised', with inter-regional scrapping and the building of walls between the groups.

Despite what some say, and despite the silly playground politics they engender, I think 'mission groups' do have their place. Or rather, in a world where some belong to a powerful mission group, the rest need to have the advocacy offered by one. Let's hope that a phoenix rises from the ashes of the 1994 Group. And soon.

Statement on Impact: Why?

HEFCE, RCUK and UUK have issued a joint statement on the joys of impact. Like Cameron's take on the UK/US relationship, things have moved from being 'special' to being 'essential.'

The statement is all a bit, well, yadda, yadda, yadda: 'committed to working together', 'embedding througout', 'engage with business', 'beneficial outcomes', 'continue to work together', 'work coherently together' etc etc

But why did the three august institutions feel the need at this time to issue a generic statement that says almost nothing? It might have something to do with the REF: the Guidance on Submissions was published on the 14th July, and it's clear (if you were at all uncertain) how important impact is going to be this time around. Still, that doesn't really explain the reason for such a statement.

To me, it has the feel of whistling in the dark, to ward off the unbelievers and dissenters, of repeating something over and over, sotto voce, to reassure yourself that what you know is right, right? and what you believe will prevail. But something like this often has an opposite effect: it makes you think, 'why are they telling me this? Do they know something I don't?'

So beyond whistling in the dark, what's the point? I'd love to know. If you work for HEFCE, RCUK or UUK do drop me a line explaining the background to the statement. Alternatively, if you don't work for any of these three wise monkeys, just guess. The more conspiratorial the better. They'll be a prize for the best of a superb non-flashing pen, crafted from pure transparent plastic with colour coded lid and end stopper detailing.

Wakeham: Cut fEC Indirect Costs by 5%

On 24 June Bill Wakeham, former VC of Southampton, announced the outcomes of a review to implement the recommendations made by the Full Economic Costing (fEC) Review published in November 2009.
Whilst recognising the success of research in the UK, he said that 'in the current economic climate we will see restrictions in public expenditure and higher education in the UK will need to play its part in demonstrating greater efficiency.'
'Greater efficiency' means cutting 5% p.a. off the Indirect Costs rate for university fEC budgets for the next three years. For those with a lower rate - including Kent - this will be 2.5%. This seems to go counter to the original ethos of fEC, which was to ensure the sustainability of research in higher education. If it was decided that the current indirect costs were set at a sustainable level, surely 5% below that is not sustainable?
The press release from RCUK/UUK is available here, and the full report is available here.

fEC 'Dogs of War' Unleashed

'Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!' bellowed RCUK, as they launched their fEC task force this week. Well, not quite. The wheels of funder bureaucracy move less dramatically, more slowly and much, much more carefully than that. Following its review that concluded in April (!) , RCUK and Universities UK (UUK) are teaming up with the Financial Sustainability Strategy Group and the TRAC Development Group to establishing a group to come up with proposals on how to implement the review’s recommendations. The group is expected to report its proposals by the end of April 2010.
But somehow that doesn't quite have the same ring as 'cry havoc...'
The full list of the fEC dogs of war is available here.

'This Calls for Immediate...Discussion'

At the same conference Gerry Lawson reported on the Alexander Review of Full Economic Costs (fEC). Introduced in 2005, fEC was intended to make university research sustainable. However, there were now concerns that the system had become overly complicated, and evidence that funds were not increasing sustainability in universities.
Amongst the findings of the review, Lawson noted:

• that there had been an 8% pa increase in Research Council funding in real terms since fEC was introduced;


• that success rates were down, but it was unclear if fEC was a factor in this;


• that 50% of universities thought the number and type of application had not changed. Most of the others thought they now submitted 'fewer but better';


• that there was little monitoring of over-commitment of staff to RCUK projects;


• that investigator time on proposals initially halved after the introduction of fEC, but had now returned to pre-fEC levels.

The Alexander Review is recommending - you guessed it - a working group to discuss the better use of funds towards sustainability. Reminds me of the 'Life of Brian': 'Right! This calls for immediate...discussion.'

UUK Sings the Blues

Paul Clark, Director of Policy at Universities UK (UUK), has confirmed the gloomy outlook for public funding for 'the course of at least 2 Parliaments.' At a conference hosted by the Charted Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA) which examined costing and pricing issues for HEIs, Clark offered his assessment of funding in higher education. 'On a TRAC-adjusted basis, the whole sector is significantly in deficit, suggesting problems for the medium-term,' he said. He suggested that there may be cuts of around 5%, and that investment was required in order to sustain quality. 'Income will be less predictable.'

In addition he noted the politicisation of research funding. 'Funding for research has become more directional in the recent past, related to Government priorities: this trend is likely to continue into the future.'

Finally, he rejected the suggestion that the dual support mechanism be changed (as reported in this post). '[It] is critical to the success of the UK research base. Both streams (RCUK and QR funding) are vital to the strength of the sector.'